One thing for the job of two

[GhostSalsa]

Yes, and libraries too. Civilization IV captures this almost perfectly; I'd argue markets and harbours should also contribute to culture. Not laboratories, nor banks, nor drydocks, though, to name some other related buildings.

Science is 'hard science'; physics, chemistry, and so forth. Culture is 'soft science' - management theories, social science, such things - as well as the exchange of ideas, views, rites, practices, and so forth. Government, therefore, is a cultural thing, and not a scientific thing, in Civilization games.

As for democracy - perhaps the Netherlands?

Sure for realism (in another thread I argued that culture in real life came from masonry as much as the printing press) but for gameplay, it should just be a choice to invest in one or the other thing. Culture from everything means culture might as well not be a mechanic.

 

[need my speed]

Sure for realism (in another thread I argued that culture in real life came from masonry as much as the printing press) but for gameplay, it should just be a choice to invest in one or the other thing. Culture from everything means culture might as well not be a mechanic.

That wouldn't be the case though. Unlike any other resource, culture is also a local resource; it drives an individual city's border expansion. And so, basic buildings could contribute a bit to culture (while being primarily focused on something else), while there are also specialised culture (/ tourism) buildings. Of course, I wasn't primarily thinking of Civilization VI, with its districts and slightly simplified buildings as a result, when I wrote that post.

 

[nzcamel]

Fair enough. Other examples I would have tossed out would be the Roman Republic, the Scandinavian Things (or whatever their name would be in various countries), the councils / consuls of northern Italy (that, admittedly, only lasted very shortly), Poland-Lithuania, and England.

My original point included the Roman Republic (birth of the US 1800 years after the RR's fall).
You'll have to go into more details on these Scandinavian councils and what they were all in all (and the Poland-Lithuania situation). I'm def interested if anyone I'm unaware of did achieve a type of democracy. But many chiefdoms run councils, actually many dictatorships too. The question is how widely was having a voice spread. It could be pretty crude compared to our ideas of democracy, but the RR allowed for a very large % of male Roman citizens to have a say at some point in the process of decision making right down to the lowest class, who also had their Tribunes with vetoes over new law.

It's always nice to note where someone attempted it; but if they did not succeed in implementing it for long then I'm still happy with my claim that Democracy did virtually vanish from the world for 1800 years. Granted, England/UK were laying a great platform for democracy including the most robust law system in the world, with regard to protecting the individual from the state. But the very thing that got them most into trouble with the American colonists -no taxation without representation- suggests that they weren't quite there yet...

 

[Victoria]

Political scientists claim a true democracy only came about with the suffrage movement

 

[CoolLizy]

Hit me with your list of democracies between the Roman Republic and the United States.

Too many to list.

The idea that people should get some say in local administration is not a new one, nor was it unique to ancient Rome or Greece.

Between Rome and the Unites specifically: many European nations had powers invested in "The Estates", which were more or less a form of democracy. The Holy Roman Empire itself had a diet (parliament) made up of its member states. Then there's the many Italian city-states such as Venice, Genoa, San Marino, et al. Cities in general usually had assemblies with some form of democratic appointment and representation. And this is just Europe; you can find countless examples of democracy in the rest of the world as well. The Iroquois/Haudenosaunee being among the more famous. No, the vast majority of these were not "universal democracy", but then neither were Rome or the Greek poleis. Voting was virtually always limited to men, and was usually only for a very specific class of citizens. Voting in the early United States was pretty much only for land-owning white men.

Democracy was not just pulled out of thin air in 1787 and brushed off after thousands of years of derelict neglect. It was a direct, federal evolution of the existing state assemblies, which themselves were based on earlier assemblies and republics spread throughout Europe (and were already undergoing their own evolution down a slightly different line; usually to constitutional monarchies or parliamentary-based republics).

 

[need my speed]

My original point included the Roman Republic (birth of the US 1800 years after the RR's fall).
You'll have to go into more details on these Scandinavian councils and what they were all in all (and the Poland-Lithuania situation). I'm def interested if anyone I'm unaware of did achieve a type of democracy. But many chiefdoms run councils, actually many dictatorships too. The question is how widely was having a voice spread. It could be pretty crude compared to our ideas of democracy, but the RR allowed for a very large % of male Roman citizens to have a say at some point in the process of decision making right down to the lowest class, who also had their Tribunes with vetoes over new law.

It's always nice to note where someone attempted it; but if they did not succeed in implementing it for long then I'm still happy with my claim that Democracy did virtually vanish from the world for 1800 years. Granted, England/UK were laying a great platform for democracy including the most robust law system in the world, with regard to protecting the individual from the state. But the very thing that got them most into trouble with the American colonists -no taxation without representation- suggests that they weren't quite there yet...

I might get back to you on that, but these aren't such obscure examples that a quick Google search won't answer it... Well, Google might point to the elective monarchy of Poland-Lithuania and leave it at that. And I suppose Italy may be a bit obscure. But the Thing and its variants are still a thing (pun not intended) to this day.

Mhm, Wikipedia doesn't go into a lot of detail... I may get back to you on this. May (EDIT: Or just go with what CoolLizy said).

As to your last two sentences, I would make two points. One, that democracy is a mechanism for 'peaceful revolution' - you don't need to violently overthrow the monarch - and that the individualist symbology (so to say) was only attached to it out of convenience, to give it emotional value, to make us emotionally invested into defending it, so to say. Democracy is a bit like a ritual, after all; we all cast our votes, and some value this so much that they take their children with them, despite the fact that they aren't allowed to vote yet. But the act of voting, the ritual, is very important to people, and some people want to impress that upon their children. Don't get me wrong, that is a very good thing, in my opinion - but inherently, removed from anything else, democracy is primarily a way to create a non-chaotical, non-violent way of changing rulers, I would argue.

Two, there was actually a law against the 'no taxation without representation' thing, but the British ignored this out of convenience (well, they came up with a silly excuse). I don't know too much about this, but from what I know-think-remember... Well, I tried looking up what I remembered, but basically, this: http://i.imgur.com/aGG6ZRj.png

Political scientists claim a true democracy only came about with the suffrage movement

Some do. Others don't. It's a semantic question, I would say; one might argue that there is no universal suffrage, as children aren't allowed to vote (and, in some countries, prisoners, and in others, non-citizens). And where would one draw the line? Children? Women? Non-whites (from a western perspective, that is)? Non-wealthy people? It's a bit arbitrary, not? This is an interesting discussion in the context of WWI though, comparing the 'democraticness' of Germany to the UK, for example.

 

[liv]

where is this going?

 

[Acken]

Can we go even more oot ?

 

[Victoria]

There is a huge difference between an adult and a child.
And yes it is a touch arbitary when including the classification of the insane or demented but one will never gain true consensus in anything in this life... Including 1 UPT.

To get back to the point, even a democracy means little in this game now.

 

[Arent11]

Political philosophy wasn't developed in labs and workshops. Ideologies are culture.

No. Ideologies are, as the name implies, ideas. Science is not only natural science but also encompasses social sciences, as the name implies. Political philosophy was "developed" at the agora & in the academy of athens. In Civilization 1 there was trade/exchange of ideas along rivers & roads & this "ressource" could be invested in science and gold.

Culture on the other hand side *carries* such ideas in music, paintings, symbols, tradition, ritual. That is why in civilization "culture" spreads the borders of your cities/civilization - precisely because the idea is that cultural influence "convinces" the surrounding villages & barbarians to join your cause. Borders do not move because of paintings, music & traditions, but people might be convinced of the greatness of your civilization/ideology/religion.

In many ways governments were developed more in theatres than they were in labs! Government is not a thing you can pick up, it's not a thing that you can put in a test tube, it's not a thing that you can use one of your five senses to be aware of. It is an idea. A conceptual idea to be precise; rather than a technical one.

A conceptual idea that can be proven/disproven in an experiment is science. History is the experiment/test tube for social sciences. Culture can carry such ideas in ritual, music & paintings, but it is not the development of such ideas.

 

[DizzKneeLand33]

Can we go even more oot ?

I like to put green pepper in my chili. The 10 pound bag pound of carrots I got from Costco is going to take forever to use, even after making multiple carrot cakes. I think that 1 upt is a brilliant idea, and we are going to use that methodology during our next game of Risk. I think the age of suffrage should somehow correspond to the age you can be drafted into a war -- if the government can send you to your death, you should at least be able to vote for or against said government.

All of the above sentences are equally relevant to the game of Civ and to the original topic at hand.....

 

[nzcamel]

Too many to list.

The idea that people should get some say in local administration is not a new one, nor was it unique to ancient Rome or Greece.

Between Rome and the Unites specifically: many European nations had powers invested in "The Estates", which were more or less a form of democracy. The Holy Roman Empire itself had a diet (parliament) made up of its member states. Then there's the many Italian city-states such as Venice, Genoa, San Marino, et al. Cities in general usually had assemblies with some form of democratic appointment and representation. And this is just Europe; you can find countless examples of democracy in the rest of the world as well. The Iroquois/Haudenosaunee being among the more famous. No, the vast majority of these were not "universal democracy", but then neither were Rome or the Greek poleis. Voting was virtually always limited to men, and was usually only for a very specific class of citizens. Voting in the early United States was pretty much only for land-owning white men.

Democracy was not just pulled out of thin air in 1787 and brushed off after thousands of years of derelict neglect. It was a direct, federal evolution of the existing state assemblies, which themselves were based on earlier assemblies and republics spread throughout Europe (and were already undergoing their own evolution down a slightly different line; usually to constitutional monarchies or parliamentary-based republics).

I am underwhelmed. Who voted for the diet?
That and...what on earth are these pre U.S. European republics you speak of?? Were they the real deal, like Rome and the U.S.? Or were they like so many "people's republics" today. i.e. not for the people, and not a republic!
The Iroquois/Haudenosaunee - now you're onto something

I might get back to you on that, but these aren't such obscure examples that a quick Google search won't answer it... Well, Google might point to the elective monarchy of Poland-Lithuania and leave it at that. And I suppose Italy may be a bit obscure. But the Thing and its variants are still a thing (pun not intended) to this day.

Mhm, Wikipedia doesn't go into a lot of detail... I may get back to you on this. May (EDIT: Or just go with what CoolLizy said).

As to your last two sentences, I would make two points. One, that democracy is a mechanism for 'peaceful revolution' - you don't need to violently overthrow the monarch - and that the individualist symbology (so to say) was only attached to it out of convenience, to give it emotional value, to make us emotionally invested into defending it, so to say. Democracy is a bit like a ritual, after all; we all cast our votes, and some value this so much that they take their children with them, despite the fact that they aren't allowed to vote yet. But the act of voting, the ritual, is very important to people, and some people want to impress that upon their children. Don't get me wrong, that is a very good thing, in my opinion - but inherently, removed from anything else, democracy is primarily a way to create a non-chaotical, non-violent way of changing rulers, I would argue.

Two, there was actually a law against the 'no taxation without representation' thing, but the British ignored this out of convenience (well, they came up with a silly excuse). I don't know too much about this, but from what I know-think-remember... Well, I tried looking up what I remembered, but basically, this: http://i.imgur.com/aGG6ZRj.png


Some do. Others don't. It's a semantic question, I would say; one might argue that there is no universal suffrage, as children aren't allowed to vote (and, in some countries, prisoners, and in others, non-citizens). And where would one draw the line? Children? Women? Non-whites (from a western perspective, that is)? Non-wealthy people? It's a bit arbitrary, not? This is an interesting discussion in the context of WWI though, comparing the 'democraticness' of Germany to the UK, for example.

Yeah. Underwhelmed still

 

[dstar]

Culture feels like it does everything. Expand your borders - culture. More government cards - culture. Defend against culture victory - culture. Even unlocks some units, buildings.....

Government wise, I liked the system in V more, felt like you were developing your society over time (Which is better for role playing, for example if I went liberty early I'd be like "this is the city-state period of my civilization" or if I went honor "Great General is the first to successfully unite my civilization kind of thing). I dislike the idea your people basically can go from super peaceful to super warlike just at the click of a button. Overnight we all got abs and are really good at fighting barbarians now !

I'm not sure what the solution is though.....

Interesting idea spawned by your first paragraph: What if certain buildings gave Faith in Ancient, Classical, and Medieval eras, Culture in Renaissance and Industrial eras, and Science in Modern, Atomic, and Information eras?

_AND_ you could spend faith to unlock certain government cards _starting in the Renaissance era_... now you have an actual choice to make. Do I build something that will give me culture later on, or something that will only give me Faith, so that I can buy certain government cards?

Ooooh.... and what if you could _also_ buy certain government cards with _Science_? You don't of course accumulate Science to spend in an obvious manner, so it would be -X Science/turn to unlock certain cards....

Ooooooooo..... Currently some cards cost -X gold/city for cities meeting their requirements... combining that idea with the previous idea, what if you had cards that provided a strong bonus _but_ a corresponding penalty to Science, Culture, or Faith... or even Production, Housing, or Amenities? You'd probably also need to apply mutual exclusions to card combinations, but it could make things more interesting... especially if for some of the cards you had to pay to unlock the card at all, in either the same thing it penalized, or in something it did not boost....

All of these together could end up with you having very situational choices to make. For example, +1 science +1 culture -2 production to Woods tiles would be a _very_ situational choice, but there might be times when it made sense (although, thinking about it, -1 production might be more reasonable.. but a pair of such cards _might_ be worth using if you were going for science or culture victories....)

 

[Gub]

For me, I thnk I have cracked why I get bored. I never blamed the Ai, I just like many could not work it out.

In Civ 5 I had the civics to look forward to, it was something else, felt different and did provide quite different and distinct strategies.

A recent topic made me go down memory lane to early Civ games. Where we had less buildings, units, research options and overall much simpler games. But when ever you built a building the game stopped and you got the city screen where you could see the buildings, wonders, population, civ era as more than just lists and numbers; when you conquered cities your troops marched passed conquered enemy cities not just entered a new tile, you had less things to research but when you did the game it felt more unique affecting the game more (less reasons to rush eras), When you culture rose you expanded your place not just your borders.

Maybe it is the nostalgia talking or something else but Victoria sentiment resonates with me. So while i actually like the idea of separating civics and research, and think the Civ has made many great improvements overtime, I can't but feel that it also lost some of its charm, things to look forward to.

 

[Hail]

merge the two trees into one. culture shall be accumilated every turn and used to buy civics (e.g. every civic card will have a culture adoption cost).

 

[greygamer]

I was going to write a long rambling post on democracies but thought better of it. The short version is most democracies aren't democratic.

 

[klail]

I like the cards but the thing I don't like about civics is that you can get everything. Even if you go, like, say Communism, you can flip to another government at a whim, or you can keep Communism and use Fascism's cards, etc. There seems to be little actual choice other than legacy government bonuses. I think they need to introduce more choices? Not sure.

 

[Magil]

I like the cards but the thing I don't like about civics is that you can get everything. Even if you go, like, say Communism, you can flip to another government at a whim, or you can keep Communism and use Fascism's cards, etc. There seems to be little actual choice other than legacy government bonuses. I think they need to introduce more choices? Not sure.

All governments have two effects (besides card slots): the legacy bonus, and another effect that is completely lost if you swap governments. For example, the Merchant Republic gives +2 Trade Routes, and that's not something you retain when switching governments. Not all of these bonuses are created equal and could use some better balancing, but that's enough for me to differentiate them and have costs associated with swapping them.

 

[UWHabs]

All governments have two effects (besides card slots): the legacy bonus, and another effect that is completely lost if you swap governments. For example, the Merchant Republic gives +2 Trade Routes, and that's not something you retain when switching governments. Not all of these bonuses are created equal and could use some better balancing, but that's enough for me to differentiate them and have costs associated with swapping them.

I think the part that needs the most work is that once the ideologies come out, I think that the modern policy cards should probably be locked to certain government types more. Sure, the legacy and permanent bonuses are a differentiator, but the policy cards still make more of a difference overall. I think what they need to have is for the modern cards to be locked to government types. So you can only run New Deal if you're running a democracy, for example. Combined with some rebalancing, that would make even more of a difference when choosing which government type to run for the end-game.

 

[klail]

All governments have two effects (besides card slots): the legacy bonus, and another effect that is completely lost if you swap governments. For example, the Merchant Republic gives +2 Trade Routes, and that's not something you retain when switching governments. Not all of these bonuses are created equal and could use some better balancing, but that's enough for me to differentiate them and have costs associated with swapping them.

Yeah, I know that you can't use all the benefits at the same time. But governments are kind of like cards, you can swap them out next time for free next time you get a new civic. In Civ 5 it was much harder to "change your mind" about things -- you had to make serious choices.

---

Feels like the civic tree / card system needs an additional restrictive mechanic of some sort.